House Republican leaders have made a counteroffer to President Obama in the fiscal cliff negotiations, proposing to cut $2.2 trillion with a combination of spending cuts, entitlement reforms and $800 billion in new tax revenue.

The leaders delivered the offer to the White House on Monday with a three-page letter signed by Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), and four other senior Republicans, including Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the partys just-defeated vice presidential nominee.

House Republican leaders have made a counteroffer to President Obama in the fiscal cliff negotiations, proposing to cut $2.2 trillion with a combination of spending cuts, entitlement reforms and $800 billion in new tax revenue.

The leaders delivered the offer to the White House on Monday with a three-page letter signed by Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), and four other senior Republicans, including Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the partys just-defeated vice presidential nominee.

What should the GOP do? First, stop reacting and start thinking. Obama has been playing three moves ahead on the chess board while the GOP is playing a pitiful game of checkers.

This offer is a good place to start but it must be shouted out that this is what Obama wanted before the election. My suggestion is just give him what he comes back with (minus the control over debt ceiling). It will suck but the blame will go with the plan, which will be his.

The goal now is not save the economy but save the House, which is the only way to save the country.

Agree. I think Congress should deal with budgets on an annual basis, since any future congress can (and probably will) ignore any actions by a previous congress. These 10-year “deals” are full of erroneous assumptions and are absolutely worthless.

14
posted on 12/03/2012 12:45:49 PM PST
by Let_It_Be_So
(Once you see the Truth, you cannot "unsee" it, no matter how hard you may try.)

So this deal in 2012 is going to save the House in 2014? I doubt anyone is even going to be thinking of this come 2014. There will be entirely new events that happen before then which will have way more impact on the election; all because voters have very short memories.

Now that the GOP made their proposal, walk away from any further discussions. The Rats should really like closing “loopholes” instead of raising the rates because it would be more spending money for them

If I were the Republicans I would say yes to raising taxes on the rich. And to do that we are going to let the “Bush tax cuts for the rich” expire.

What are the Dmeocrats going to do? Come back and say the Bush tax cuts that they claimed for 8 years were only for the rich now include everyone else?

You mean the Democrats and the media lied to the American people? They turned this into class warfare?

Then the Republicans should come right out and say that since the Bush tax cuts were for everyone, they should be made permanent and vote on it. And then they would address taxes on the wealthy in the form of plugging loopholes.

Now mane the Senate vote on it.

Oh, and I would use every last dime from the 2012 campaign and run commercials day and night.

25
posted on 12/03/2012 12:59:22 PM PST
by EQAndyBuzz
(George W. Bush is the Emmanuel Goldstein of the modern era.)

Are you kidding? No matter what the republicans do, NO MATTER, Obama will go out and tell the people how bad the pubs are and the state run media will agree with him. Do you think Obama would ever say republicans are good? This is what all this is about, not OUR MONEY, not our welfare, IT IS ABOUT GOTCHA AND OBAMA HAVING ULTIMATE POWER. The Republican Party is done, in fact, any party other than the Obama party is done.

We are counter offering our previous offer negotiating with ourselves. Stand up and say “no” and let Obama take it over the cliff with this caveat. When obama says “ now we need a middle class tax cut” — simply say —NOPE. Your deal— Your fault. Cut spending.Over the cliff is better than this cave in stuff.

Let the Dems have what ever they want, just stand back and vote present. That way when it all goes south, the GOP fingerprints are nowhere on any of the bills. I saw this too. I hate the idea of it. What was the point of winning the House if you are just going to stand back and do nothing. When it comes to spending the House has to start any spending bill, this is a huge advantage. Make Dems go on record voting against extending the tax cuts, get down EXACTLY what 'loopholes' you intend to close so we don't get hammered for being vague in the media. Then pass it and walk away.

31
posted on 12/03/2012 1:02:58 PM PST
by HenryArmitage
(it was not meant that we should voyage far.)

Obama is not that smart. Judging by the way he does everything else, it's a good guess that he does not play chess well at all.

He is, however, bold and reckless and not driven to find compromise or meaningful improvement, but rather seeks a legacy for his narcissism. He was raised in a culture where outlandish opening positions are taken for granted and lies and deception show skill in negotiating with an enemy.

Our culture is different and is based on mutual respect for opponents and a genuine desire for outcomes that benefit all. It's important to note when your opponent is pursuing a goal outside of your negotiating "boundaries" and adjust accordingly. If this had occurred previously, Obama would have been forced to adjust his style and he has not done that. Either that or he's just too stupid to be aware of what is going on. In that case, the negotiations should be suspended.

32
posted on 12/03/2012 1:04:26 PM PST
by tentmaker
(Galt's Gulch is a state of mind...)

He was smart enough to get re-elected in the worst financial times since the 1930s. And he did it by painting the GOP as protecting the rich 2% while screwing the 47%...the same way he will win the House in two years if the GOP doesn’t stop reacting and start thinking.

Or the Republicans could go along and increase taxes, and then in 2014, some other big issues will be front and center on voters’ minds, and the GOP will still lose the House. You must be a political neophyte to think that what the House does in December 2012 is going to seal the outcome of the 2014 election. This is the best time to take risks, 2 years away from the next election. If they fold now, they will fold for the next 2 years and get absolutely slaughtered in 2014, because the GOP base will say, “bye- bye”.

It doesn't matter what the GOP does or says, since the media is in bed with the Dems. So whatever negative that happens will be blamed on the GOP, and whatever good comes out of it will be given to O.

It is not that O is so much smarter than the GOP (he's not), or that the GOP isn't thinking ahead (I'm sure they are). It is just that there is no way to compete against a stacked deck and a stupid voting populace.

37
posted on 12/03/2012 1:11:26 PM PST
by kosciusko51
(Enough of "Who is John Galt?" Who is Patrick Henry?)

Hmm ~ Obama won in 2012 through the simple expedient of running against an unelectable GOP-e candidate AND despite the loss of 7 million voters he'd had with him in 2008.

In 2010 the Republicans won despite the loss of 15 million voters they'd had in 2008, because, put in the simplest terms, 30 million Democrat voters didn't show up.

Did you know that in 2006, the Democrats took over the House mostly because 26 million Republican voters they'd had in 2004 DISAPPEARED ~ while the Democrats had only a few million who failed to show.

These different elections have wide swings, but they're not made up of millions of swing voters ~ rather, the parties have pretty much the same, or roughly the same, level of field strength and can probably get out 70 million Republican or 70 million Democrat voters for any given election IF they try hard enough.

In 2006 Republican voters stayed away because it looked like too much of the party leadership had gone Gay. In 2008, both parties made major pushes, but McCain simply couldn't get out as many Republicans as had George Bush in 2004. In 2010, the Democrats faced an angry constituency of their own ~ they'd promised an electric car in every drive but had instead delivered up cardboard bicycles!

In 2012 the Republicans tried the same trick they'd tried in 2008, and about 11 times before, and it still didn't work!

If I read what you said correctly you actually think the 47% comment had a meaningful effect?

Again, back to the 7 million voter drop off suffered by the Democrats from 2008 to 2012 ~ it may have actually benefited the Republicans considerably! Maybe we should try 46% this time ~ and let people impute whatever meaning they can to it.

Or, just tell the Democrats that in 2014 the election is on Wednesday ~ so no early voting ~ we promise the lines will be short.

Come on now, nobody believes that. 82 million are under 19 (that is, they are minors), and 58 million are 65 and over (that is, mostly retirees). That right there is 140 million people in our population who aren't working. That leaves you at most 180 million to work and have babies, or create disabled working age adults.

If 47% of our 320 million population were NOT EMPLOYED that'd leave only about 20 million left to be employed if we simply exempt the elderly and the very young from the equation.

Try doing the numbers some time before you start believing a story told to you by Sean Hannity.

And, Timmy's absurd proposal proves my point...team obama does not want a deal...they want pain...pain that they can blame on the GOP's coddling of the "rich".

I can hear him now..."I need your help...I tried but the GOP in the House is worried more about protecting the riches 2% than it is about you...give me what I need to fix this...give me control of the House..."

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.